@article{fdi:010096517,
  title = {{S}ystematic review of {M}arine {P}rotected {A}rea management effectiveness evaluation methods},
  author = {{Z}afimahatradraibe, {J}. {A}. and {R}anaivomanana, {L}. {N}. {J}. and {T}odinanahary, {G}. {G}. {B}. and {M}adi, {H}. {H}. and {R}andrianjafimanana, {T}. and {D}evillers, {R}odolphe and {T}uda, {A}. {O}. and {C}habanet, {P}ascale},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{M}arine {P}rotected {A}reas ({MPA}s) are a cornerstone of global marine biodiversity conservation strategies, yet their effectiveness remains highly variable, context-dependent, and often contested. {W}hile various methods can be used to assess the effectiveness of {MPA} management, they are heterogeneous in their scopes, objectives, and analytical models, each having respective strengths and limitations. {D}espite the common use of those methods, few studies have systematically identified and compared them, limiting our understanding of their relative suitability in a given context. {T}his study addressed this gap by comparing the methods used to evaluate {MPA} management effectiveness, highlighting their advantages and limitations. {T}hree approaches were combined: (1) an analysis of the global database on protected area management effectiveness - {PAME}, (2) a systematic literature review following the {PRISMA} protocol ({P}referred {R}eporting {I}tems for {S}ystematic {R}eviews), and (3) an expert consultation. {W}e identified 33 methods that differ according to their geographic scale of application (global, regional, national/local), targeted protection status (e.g., all {MPA} sites, {W}orld {H}eritage {S}ite), and management theme (e.g., governance, biological). {K}ey differences among methods emerged in the indicators used, their implementation processes, and the tool used to conduct the actual evaluation. {F}indings underscore the importance of aligning method selection with evaluation objectives, the desired level of analysis, and specific evaluation requirements, thereby strengthening the robustness of {MPA} effectiveness assessment.},
  keywords = {{MPA} ; {A}ssessment {T}ool ; {M}anagement {C}ycle ; {I}ndicators ; {O}utcomes ; {PAME} database},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{M}arine {P}olicy},
  volume = {189},
  numero = {},
  pages = {107114 [16 p.]},
  ISSN = {0308-597{X}},
  year = {2026},
  DOI = {10.1016/j.marpol.2026.107114},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010096517},
}